THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY. MARCH 19. 1906. AN ARCHBISHOP ON SOCIALISM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13545, 19 March 1906, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY. MARCH 19. 1906. AN ARCHBISHOP ON SOCIALISM.

Archbishop Redwood, of Wellington, apparently takes the Socialist movement much more seriously than most of his brother prelates do. He has issued in book form a pastoral letter in which he vigorously attacks the gospel of Socialism from a physical and moral standpoint, and, holding that the movement must be met not with negation but with a positive programme of reform, indicates what in his opinion should be the main features of that programme. The crusade would be easier were Socialism, rightly described by Archbishop Redwood as a widespread and pernicious error of the day, more tangible in form. At present it is a vague, shadowy political shape threatening to materialise and to develop into a tyrannous regime under which individual liberty, the incentive to industry, thrift, frugality, ambition, and progress, will be palsied, and in their stead a spurious doctrine of equality set up and made binding alike on the slothful laggard and the eager, restless soul striving for pre-eminence in its particular vocation in life. Socialism is a dangerous doctrine, because, in spite of the altruism professed by most of its adherents, it is unpatriotic, materialistic, and commonplace. It appeals, as an eminent European publicist contends, in all countries to the bas etages of the human soul. It scorns history, idealism, and progress. It preaches that once people have sufficient food and drink they will be happy. It is as old as the mountains, and it has always been a failure. But although there is little danger of any country of importance embracing Socialism as a basis of government, there are pertaju movements in «U countries

which are sufficiently Socialistic in their -tendency to be dangerous and distinctly subversive of the general good. It is against such movements that an antiSocialistic crusade has commenced and is being actively carried on in Australia to-day. The general body of Socialistic opinion is in itself anything but unanimous. There are those irresponsible dreamers imbued with Oollectivist ideas who fondly picture a state which smacks of the millennium where there will be luxury for all as the product of a minimum of exertion. Then there are others who realise something of tho enormous and revolutionary changes which would be involved even in tha gradual transference of all industrial enterprise to the control of the State—

who, generally graduating in the school of trades unionism, are able to see that they must work along constitutional lines, using as a fulcrum the ballot box and the Legislature. Buoyed up by a sublime faith in the capacity of the State to undertake the feeding, housing, and clothing of its subjects, tho Socialist would cheerfully abrogate economic laws and vest a possibly corrupt Govern-

ment with the management of vast enterprises, which, in the face of exist-

ing competition, can only be carried on successfully by men skilled in the science of commerce, whoso chief incen-

tive is one of direct personal interest. But under the Socialistic regime the incentive to excel is gone. Doubtless

there would always be a few ardent spirits who, in the field of art and research, would toil late and early, simply for the joy of working. But as a matter of every-day experience we

know that the average man only works from necessity, and is generally glad of an excuse to stop. Existence in a civilised community at the present day practically turns on the question of supply. The material wants of the community are the basic cause of the production and distribution of wealth, for man must consume to live. Consequently everyone, according to his means, can command the services of the producing agencies of the wide world, and competition places at his disposal the infinite variety of commodities which fashion and fancy dictate.

Under a Socialistic regime our material wants would be supplied by an army of State-paid officials under no obligation

to do anything but get through their work in the easiest and quickest, manner possible. As Archbiehop Redwood points out, individual peculiarities and tastes would count for nothing; hence there must be barrack-room uniformity if the Colleetivist -scheme, is to work, and no genuine liberty of consumption. This in itself would be quite sufficient to break down any system under which Socialistic principles were imposed upon a community, but it is only one of many cogent

reasons which can be brought against Socialism. Archbishop Redwood groups

the objections to Socialism from an economic standpoint under five lread-

ings—the difficulty of organising business, of supplying wants, of assigning employment, of adjustment of reward, and of furnishing an adequate motive

for industry and frugality. All or any of these are sufficient to indict the

system. Unfortunately, however, there are comparatively few people capable of applying economic tests, to Socialistic

tenets, and the majority who are advocating Socialism to-day do po because they are profoundly impressed with the imperfections of our present mode of

life, the sordidness, squalor, and greed

that greet them on every hand in largo centres of population,, the opulence and ostentation of tliosn whose fortune it was to be born rich, and the grinding

poverty and suffering which is the

heritage of thousands who have no prospect of emerging from their unhappy condition. On the principle that anything is better than the existing con-

dions of life, Socialism is put forward

as a panacea for evils which are really the product of ignorance, incapacity, misgovernment, idleness, excess, and the general disability of the unfit. All

these things produce pain and suffering, which in turn compel the effort that eventually leads to emancipation. In

the scheme of life there is an.ebb and flow of human energy which the while lifts the individual to heights of eminence and in turn leaves him stranded, a poor, frail piece of human wreckage amongst the flotsam and jetsam littering the shores of the social world. Poverty and the struggle for existence beget the qualities and the character essential to success. The harder the struggle against adversity the greater store there is likely to be of the capacity to retain the position carved out, and thus- certair historic families have been leaders in commerce, polities', and so forth for generations. But ease and luxury tell in the end, and the descent i:~ begun which often leaves the scions of nobility to share the husks while the vulgarian by sheer force of character sits in high places. Crossings are now swept and menial work done in thousands of instances by the lineal descendants of the nobility of olden times; and the game goes merrily on. The virtual rulers of the earth continue to be recruited from the ranks of the common people, '• the breeding ground," as one writer puts it, " of the people of high destiny." Yet, in spite of the plain teaching of history, the Socialist comes fonvard with his doctrine of equality, utterly regardless of the fact that there can never be anything but inequality of capacity as long as human beings people the earth. \V« can scarcely follow Archbishop Redwood in his conclusion that it is reserved for the Catholic Church to solve the social problem, but in his propositions for the amelioration of social conditions we

recognise an honest effort to deal with

the question. He writes: "We can and must unite our forces and follow social reform along the four lines of protected labour, of organised labour, of insured labour, and lastly of diffusive ownership." Of these the fourth is the

most important. His proposition is that " the majority of the people should not live merely from hand to mouth, but should have, each family, its small capital, some partnership, shares,, or stocks, but principally a small plot of mother earth, from the size of a garden to the size of a small farm, that no creditor should touch, that belonged tp the family rather than to the individual.?' This colony has already made some progress along the road to a larger diffusion of wealth, and the tendency is in the direction of a still greater distribution in the future. But the universal possession of the things Archbishop Redwood enumerates presupposes a wider application of the principles of industry, thrift, frugality, and individual independence than exists at present, •W« should be gjad to thiuk that ths

possession of these qualities is becoming more general: they are certainly the best, antidote to the false allurements of the doctrine of Socialism.